Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    What Is The Most Lied-About Subject in History?

    Uploaded by

    Eden Dela Cruz
    The document discusses how the causes of the American Civil War have been misrepresented throughout history. It argues that slavery was the sole cause of the war, as Confederate states seceded explicitly to preserve the institution of slavery. However, for over a century after the war, the prevailing narrative presented the Confederacy as fighting for states' rights rather than the right to own slaves. The document uses Ulysses S. Grant as an example of how Southern revisionism distorted the historical perception of a Union leader who strongly advocated for the rights of freed slaves in the postwar period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    What Is The Most Lied-About Subject in History?

    Uploaded by

    Eden Dela Cruz
    53 views2 pages
    The document discusses how the causes of the American Civil War have been misrepresented throughout history. It argues that slavery was the sole cause of the war, as Confederate states seceded explicitly to preserve the institution of slavery. However, for over a century after the war, the prevailing narrative presented the Confederacy as fighting for states' rights rather than the right to own slaves. The document uses Ulysses S. Grant as an example of how Southern revisionism distorted the historical perception of a Union leader who strongly advocated for the rights of freed slaves in the postwar period.

    Original Description:

    ..........

    Original Title

    jjjjjhhh

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses how the causes of the American Civil War have been misrepresented throughout history. It argues that slavery was the sole cause of the war, as Confederate states seceded explicitly to preserve the institution of slavery. However, for over a century after the war, the prevailing narrative presented the Confederacy as fighting for states' rights rather than the right to own slaves. The document uses Ulysses S. Grant as an example of how Southern revisionism distorted the historical perception of a Union leader who strongly advocated for the rights of freed slaves in the postwar period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views2 pages

    What Is The Most Lied-About Subject in History?

    Uploaded by

    Eden Dela Cruz
    The document discusses how the causes of the American Civil War have been misrepresented throughout history. It argues that slavery was the sole cause of the war, as Confederate states seceded explicitly to preserve the institution of slavery. However, for over a century after the war, the prevailing narrative presented the Confederacy as fighting for states' rights rather than the right to own slaves. The document uses Ulysses S. Grant as an example of how Southern revisionism distorted the historical perception of a Union leader who strongly advocated for the rights of freed slaves in the postwar period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    What is the most lied-about subject in history?

    The causes of the American Civil War.

    Okay, here’s the truth - “Slavery”. That’s it, that’s all.

    American history’s treatment of the Civil War, at all levels from grade school to university,
    has put a lie to the maxim that “History is written by the victors”. The history of the Civil War
    was written by the losers, and everyone bought it hook, line and sinker.

    From roughly the late 19th century to recently, the narrative has been that the Confederacy
    was fighting for the rights of states to determine their own affairs and to preserve their way
    of life. It just so happens the “rights” were “the right to own slaves” and the “way of life” was
    “having slaves do everything”.

    It was clear from the beginning of the war that the states that left did it because they
    perceived slavery was under threat. They had just had four years where the slave states were
    effectively in control of the executive of the federal government and the fact that a guy who
    was not completely and utterly in favour of slavery had made it to the White House. In fact,
    Lincoln wasn’t even the most anti-slavery member of the Republican party. That would have
    been Seward, who Republicans saw as “unelectable” because of his strong views on the
    subject.

    As such, the guys who fought a traitorous war to preserve slavery were, for over a century,
    seen as the “good guys” and this attitude was even discussed seriously at the highest levels
    of American academia.

    This was no more evident in the way history treated this guy

    You probably learned in school that Ulysses S Grant was some sort of “second rate
    president” who had a “corrupt administration”. In fact, Grant was a first-rate president who
    consistently upheld the rights of freed slaves in the south, including sending federal troops
    to New Orleans when an all-white mob tried to take over the government. He also managed
    to crush the KKK and deal with election violence against blacks. He oversaw a period where
    more black elected officials existed than in any other time in American history. Of course,
    Southerners hated him for it, so they downplayed his very real accomplishments and
    promoted the fact that some of the people working for him were no-good and he was too
    trusting. Grant himself was never tainted by corruption and was pretty much broke when he
    died.
    And if he was such a bad president, why is he on the $50 bill?

    And why did New York build this?

    Late 19th century America loved General/President Grant, who was elected twice with large
    majorities. They would have voted for him a third time had he run. There are FOURTEEN
    counties in the United States named “Grant County”, including Arkansas and Kentucky.

    You might also like